Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Bush is most obviously the best candidate for president this election. He has shown himself to be tough on terrorism, and has good domestic policy. While he may have some deficits, they were necessary to prevent the economy from slipping into a depression as was predicted by some experts. To you skeptics of the Iraq war, know this: Saddam was a threat in that he could have obtained weapons in 10 years and was brutal to his people. Even Senator Kerry agrees with this. Besides that Kerry flip flops like there is no tomorrow and is weak on terrorism and want the UN to run the country while supporting government run healthcare.

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

I agree. Besides, the international community is entirely supportive of Bush and his plans, as well as his spectacular economic record. (We're gaining jobs now!)

Fortunately, there are still WMD to be found in Iraq, and Saddam's Al-Quaida ties are going to be broken any day now! Bush is a fantastic success!

Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Does "tough" mean getting our arses kicked in Iraq by insurgents...and being able to take a beating like a man? Or does it mean blowing up civilian homes, killing thousands, while driving to Hole #10 at the Country Club?

What domestic policy of his has worked well enough to warrant the signature of "good"?

How are deficits necessary to prevent a depression? And who is to say that if we didn't have said deficits that we would have experienced a depression?

OK, fine, Saddam was a threat. In 10 years, he would be deadly. I agree, let's do something about it. But we HAD 10 YEARS (by your estimate). Why did we have to rush off, ignoring our allies' advice and consequently isolate ourselves from the rest of the world? If we truly had that much time...why were we led to believe that it was necessary to "act now"?

How is a decorated, vietnam veteran "weaK" at soldiering, when it comes to terrorisim? Where has he ever once said that he wants the UN to "run the country"? In one of his last debates w/ Bush, he publicly stated that he will NOT turn over this nation to any other's influence and will NOT allow other nations to jeopardize our nation's security? So where is that claim coming from?

Also, what is so wrong about Healthcare? The alternative of course, would be to leave it alone, as is. There are several million people today IN the US, w/o any healthcare whatsoever. Shall we push those "undesirables" out of the way and pretent they don't exist? Shall we ignore them just because they are less fortunate or less financially secure? Are they not our countrymen as well? Or does one have to be in a certain tax bracket to be an "actual" American?

-=]Apokalupsis[=-Senior Administrator-------------------------I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Bush is a fool for rushing off to war, sure Saddam was a threat, perhaps. Yet, there are no WMDs found to this day, we are causing a lot more terrorism by attacking than just leaving them alone, now because of our actions, the terrorists all over. I don't see how this is going to make a "brighter" America. At this rate, we will have another Vietnam, we rushed to war with no allies to help us out, we have spent overwhelming amount of money for war, it's all disasterous, Kerry will at least know how to lead our troops to victory and organize this whole situation a lot better than Bush can.

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Originally Posted by ShadowKnight

Bush is a fool for rushing off to war, sure Saddam was a threat, perhaps. Yet, there are no WMDs found to this day, we are causing a lot more terrorism by attacking than just leaving them alone, now because of our actions, the terrorists all over. I don't see how this is going to make a "brighter" America. At this rate, we will have another Vietnam, we rushed to war with no allies to help us out, we have spent overwhelming amount of money for war, it's all disasterous, Kerry will at least know how to lead our troops to victory and organize this whole situation a lot better than Bush can.

Saddam was no threat to America, he is not our concern.

I agree entirely. We alienated our allies, and used violence far before we had to. We are now paying the price in lives and money, and will continue to be reminded of our mistake as terrorist recruiting increases from this quagmire in Iraq.

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Originally Posted by KevinBrowning

I agree entirely. We alienated our allies, and used violence far before we had to. We are now paying the price in lives and money, and will continue to be reminded of our mistake as terrorist recruiting increases from this quagmire in Iraq.

We had to make a decision as soon as possible. If we waited, who knows what he could've done? We all know that the UN would never have agreed to entering into it, so we just skipped all the unnessesary steps and stopped the terrorism at its source: Iraq. The world is now a safer place.

"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent." 1984, By George Orwell. Part 2: Chapter 9.

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Originally Posted by KneeLess

We had to make a decision as soon as possible. If we waited, who knows what he could've done? We all know that the UN would never have agreed to entering into it, so we just skipped all the unnessesary steps and stopped the terrorism at its source: Iraq. The world is now a safer place.

Silly me. I thought Osama Bin Hiding admitted to being the source of the 9/11 attacks. When did he move from Afghanistan to Iraq? :rolleyes:

But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

I dissagree that bush is the right man for the job.
Kerry is a smart and quick wited man. His plans for helth care and well thought out and easly payed for. Bush's plans are a complete failer, his oil mongering and guns shining into Iraq has cost this nation billions of dollars and thousands of lives. And he has yet to prove him self a good president. Kerry on the other hand, is a wise experience teached, and handsome young man (lol) He sould be democratic ruler of the world! _ (i love role reversal)

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

We had to make a decision as soon as possible. If we waited, who knows what he could've done? We all know that the UN would never have agreed to entering into it, so we just skipped all the unnessesary steps and stopped the terrorism at its source: Iraq. The world is now a safer place.

Iraq is in chaos! extreamist groups and killing thousands of men and whemon, they care nothing for the rules of war. Bushes ignorance of not gettin UN approval and just asking 1nce of twice and makeing a wisper apals me! IMPEACH

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Originally Posted by vance101

Iraq is in chaos! extreamist groups and killing thousands of men and whemon, they care nothing for the rules of war. Bushes ignorance of not gettin UN approval and just asking 1nce of twice and makeing a wisper apals me! IMPEACH

Iraq is not in chaos. It's making vast improvements; elections are going to be held soon. It does have a few militant group problems, but we are tracking down these terrorists. You'll see a new, democratic, Iraq soon

"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent." 1984, By George Orwell. Part 2: Chapter 9.

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Originally Posted by KneeLess

Iraq is not in chaos. It's making vast improvements; elections are going to be held soon. It does have a few militant group problems, but we are tracking down these terrorists. You'll see a new, democratic, Iraq soon

Absolutely. As soon as we destroy the remaining terrorist groups and secure the Iraqi military and democracy, we will be able to set our sights on other terrorist nations.

Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Originally Posted by SK

Saddam was no threat to America, he had no weapons, if he did, then perhaps that would be a legitamate(sp) reason, but none were found were they?

I ask you why I should trust you and you answer with a blatent untruth. Of course Saddam had weapons, what do you think the Al Qaqaa storage depot used to have in it? Explosives. Explosives definitely constitute weapons. Besides, the Duelfer report did not rule out WMDs, it just said that there was no evidence for them.

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Originally Posted by Neverending

I ask you why I should trust you and you answer with a blatent untruth. Of course Saddam had weapons, what do you think the Al Qaqaa storage depot used to have in it? Explosives. Explosives definitely constitute weapons. Besides, the Duelfer report did not rule out WMDs, it just said that there was no evidence for them.

The reasons given for war were Saddam having WMD, not just explosives (conventional weapons).

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Iraq is not in chaos. It's making vast improvements; elections are going to be held soon. It does have a few militant group problems, but we are tracking down these terrorists. You'll see a new, democratic, Iraq soon

i dont call hundreds of US troops dieing monthly a few millitant problums. I call that a rebelion. Soon when is soon? Its been almost if not more then a year since this war started, where is the victory? where are the destroyed milllitant grpues? i dont see Millinons of Iraqies parading the streets hailing the US. if the millitant people agreed with us then we wouldent have this problum

Re: Bush is a better candidate for the presidency

Originally Posted by vance101

i dont call hundreds of US troops dieing monthly a few millitant problums. I call that a rebelion. Soon when is soon? Its been almost if not more then a year since this war started, where is the victory? where are the destroyed milllitant grpues? i dont see Millinons of Iraqies parading the streets hailing the US. if the millitant people agreed with us then we wouldent have this problum

Umm... it's nearly been two years already... time flies, eh? We moved in late March, 2003. Just over 1000 American casualties have been had. Do the math. We're looking at a span of 20 months, so that's about 50 deaths a month. Last time I checked, 50 was only hundreds for really large values of 50.

This War in Iraq has seen quite a bit of success. I absolutely despise when people spout out that 1000 US soldiers have died and pretend that this is some historically staggering number. Does anyone remember anything from history class? Aside from the Persian Gulf War, 1000 deaths over a two-year span doesn't really represent a large number of casualties. The biggest problem we have on our hands is an exit-strategy. However, just think about it for a second. Do we really lack one? We have stated time and time again that we are waiting for the Iraqi people to establish a safe, secure, democratic state. We haven't done that yet, so how have we violated our plan? Guess we haven't. The people who are complaining about it are those who prefer an isolationist approach to foreign policy... wait a second... isn't that a paradox? How can you be a turtle in your approach to helping others? Doesn't work. If I could find a valid problem with what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be that we have done a poor job raising the morale of the people and rallying THE CITIZENS against the rebels. The insurgents are almost indistinguishable from your average citizen. That's why we need good citizens to take an active role in the reconstruction of their nations and keep an eye out for these insurgents. If you see them, try to tip off American soldiers, take them down, steal their supplies, or even just make them look more conspicuous. Make it difficult for the insurgents to hide. We've taken such an active role in things that we seem to have forgotten who else needs to participate in their own needs.

I think, therefore I am. Thus, while I sleep, I am not! Could this be why time appears to have no bearing while asleep, because you do not exist? What is time? What defines existence? A body, a mind, a soul? Thus, I envy those that die, for they have the answers. Yet, what is death? Does the sentience of an entity cease to be at the time the body fails? We shall all see one day. ;?